Content
63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and actionable, with executable grader commands, clear templates, and a coherent four-phase workflow, though it lacks an explicit fail-and-retry feedback loop. Its main weaknesses are length from a duplicative worked example and the absence of any progressive disclosure — everything, including reusable templates, is inlined in one ~220-line file.
Suggestions
Move the eval definition templates, grader prompts, and the worked auth example into a references/ file (e.g. references/templates.md) and signal it from SKILL.md, keeping the body to an overview plus workflow
Cut the duplicated 範例 section or shorten it to a pointer, since it restates the full define/implement/evaluate/report workflow already documented
Add an explicit failure-recovery step to the workflow (eval FAIL → fix → re-run eval → only proceed when PASS) to close the feedback loop
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~220 lines of mostly templates and process guidance, but it carries redundancy: the full worked example ('範例：新增認證') repeats the define/implement/evaluate/report workflow already documented, and several template blocks restate the same structure twice (workflow section vs. example section). This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'); not 2 since there is no padded conceptual explanation, not 4 given the duplicated example section. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete artifacts abound: copy-ready eval definition templates, executable bash checks ('grep -q "export function handleAuth" src/auth.ts && echo "PASS"', 'npm test -- --testPathPattern="auth"'), a file layout, and a full report format. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: the '/eval define|check|report' commands are referenced but not defined anywhere in the bundle, and placeholders like '[執行每個能力 eval，記錄 PASS/FAIL]' are pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase workflow (定義 → 實作 → 評估 → 報告) is clearly sequenced with concrete commands and PASS/FAIL checkpoints culminating in explicit status gating ('狀態：準備審查' / '準備發佈'). It sits at anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5 because there is no explicit failure-recovery feedback loop (what to do when an eval fails mid-implementation and how to re-run/verify the fix). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-sectioned but everything is inlined: eval templates, grader prompt formats, the metrics reference, and a full worked example — content that belongs in separate reference files (e.g. templates/EXAMPLES.md) at ~220 lines. No bundle files exist to offload it. This fits anchor 3 ('some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'); the sectioning is genuinely good, so not 2, but the simple-skill exception does not apply at this length. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |